Supposedly there's a big wrangle going on in Washington over curtailing some of the more obnoxious elements of the NSA wiretap law that was sneaked through at the last minute before recess.
But, says the New York Times, "Democratic leaders" see a deal on a measure to hold telecom firms immune from lawsuits for cooperating with government wiretap demands when another wiretap bill replaces the current one, which expires automatically in five months. (The most likely "leader" mentioned is John D. Rockefeller, head of the Senate intelligence committee.)
McConnell said that because of court rulings, the wiretap data flow had shrunk to a tiny stream by comparison with the time when the government had free rein to eavesdrop.
At the moment, telecom firms face lawsuits over their duty to protect customers from improper invasions of privacy by government officials. In the past, before the Times bared the NSA warrantless wiretap story, major telecom firms had for years turned a blind eye to spooks and FBI wiretappers operating out of telecom facilities. No touchy questions were asked about legalities. Now, however, these corporations are on their guard against eavesdropping that isn't legally justified.
So there's the real problem that's bothering McConnell, Rockefeller and the oligarchs. Easy backdoor spying on political or economic adversaries is being thwarted. The return of this unseemly practice is the aim of the telecom shield law. If telecoms can't be held accountable for ensuring that legal responsibilities are met concerning privacy and improper searches, then neither can the government and those who misuse it be restrained and held accountable.
Quantum developments peril communications
Nearly all encrypted data that moves over the internet or via secure electronic channels, such as your debit/credit card transactions, is based on a combined public key-private key system. The public key system uses numbers composed of very large primes, which, using classical computation, are considered extremely difficult to
factor.
However, researchers say they have proved that quantum factoring is feasible and are suggesting methods of making quantum computation practical. A paper by an Australian team, with some funding from the U.S. Office of Disruptive Technologies, said its experiment provided a "proof of the use of quantum entanglement for arithmetic calculations." The team, headed by Andrew White of the University of Queensland suggested checking for ways to craft quantum factoring algorithms that take advantage of the specific computer design used.
See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.1398.pdf
Another team, led by Chao-Yang Lu of China's University of Science and Technology, used four photonic qubits (units of quantum information) to factor the number 15.
Further research, the authors say, should be directed at coherent manipulations of more qubits, construction of complex multiqubit gates and quantum error correction."
See http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0705.1684v2.pdf
A pay-to-read article on the topic may be found at New Scientist.
Though the number 15 is dwarfed by the primes used in electronic encryption, the race is on, and there's no telling how long it will be before someone is reading everyone else's stuff. Whoever does so first might become Emperor of Terra.
Well, what about a different encryption system? There's the rub. There doesn't seem to be a good alternative to the public key-private key method for electronic communications. It was a revolutionary development, and revolutionary developments can't be ordered up like a cup of coffee.
Market wobbles
The Fed's attempt to smooth out the market, and the economy, with a major rate cut follows classical regulatory policy. But it doesn't address current emergent problems: the fear of subprime effects; the unforeseen instabilities inherent in burgeoning quant computer trading; awareness that U.S. security officials are grasping for full access to virtually all private financial transactions; and the unsettling possibility that nearly all secure electronic communications are on the verge of being compromised; and that there is no back-up plan to uphold the modern financial communications infrastructure.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Nominee ain't too bright, or...
He's just another humdrum low-life conspirator.
Mukasey's record as a federal judge was to back Bush's extremist presidential power position in the "war on terror." In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece the ex-judge chastised the crybabies who were worried about our basic American freedoms being imperiled by the sickeningly named Patriot Act.
His point is that America is fighting a dangerous, insidious enemy and must resort to very stern measures. Good point... If you're an idiot and have no idea that forces within our own government stabbed America in the back and then used the incident as a pretext to pile up central power.
No wonder people like Schumer think well of him. Schumer, who backed the Iraq war resolution, has never taken notice of the obvious and extensive evidence of treason and had little problem with the U.S. emulating Israel's brutal interrogation methods.
Mukasey will be expected to make sure the Justice Dept. does nothing about the treason, not that the FBI isn't already well in hand. He will be expected to make sure the FBI "gets the tools it needs" to wiretap and spy on "dangerous enemies of the state" who know that treason occurred and want to do something about it.
Mukasey is a New York lawyer who served the power elite before becoming a judge. Today, he's an adviser to the Giuliani campaign. Giuliani has hinted that something might be amiss when he made a point of saying that he was incredulous at how the twin towers collapsed -- but otherwise he has "played the game" of staying out of the controversy over evidence of massive treason.
Among Mukasey's clients was Roy Cohn, onetime aide to Joe McCarthy. Though Mukasey is right behind Bush-style "McCarthyism," I believe that McCarthy would have had Mukasey on his list of dupes and fellow travelers, based on the old credo: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
In the meantime, Bush has kicked out the apparently nonpartisan lawyer slated as interim attorney general and installed a fellow whose factional credentials seem to ensure that traitors need not worry.
Mukasey's record as a federal judge was to back Bush's extremist presidential power position in the "war on terror." In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece the ex-judge chastised the crybabies who were worried about our basic American freedoms being imperiled by the sickeningly named Patriot Act.
His point is that America is fighting a dangerous, insidious enemy and must resort to very stern measures. Good point... If you're an idiot and have no idea that forces within our own government stabbed America in the back and then used the incident as a pretext to pile up central power.
No wonder people like Schumer think well of him. Schumer, who backed the Iraq war resolution, has never taken notice of the obvious and extensive evidence of treason and had little problem with the U.S. emulating Israel's brutal interrogation methods.
Mukasey will be expected to make sure the Justice Dept. does nothing about the treason, not that the FBI isn't already well in hand. He will be expected to make sure the FBI "gets the tools it needs" to wiretap and spy on "dangerous enemies of the state" who know that treason occurred and want to do something about it.
Mukasey is a New York lawyer who served the power elite before becoming a judge. Today, he's an adviser to the Giuliani campaign. Giuliani has hinted that something might be amiss when he made a point of saying that he was incredulous at how the twin towers collapsed -- but otherwise he has "played the game" of staying out of the controversy over evidence of massive treason.
Among Mukasey's clients was Roy Cohn, onetime aide to Joe McCarthy. Though Mukasey is right behind Bush-style "McCarthyism," I believe that McCarthy would have had Mukasey on his list of dupes and fellow travelers, based on the old credo: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
In the meantime, Bush has kicked out the apparently nonpartisan lawyer slated as interim attorney general and installed a fellow whose factional credentials seem to ensure that traitors need not worry.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Scientific debate over WTC collapses heats up
A scientific debate over the plausibility of the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses is gaining momentum as a Cambridge University engineering lecturer joined the fray by tackling a big hole in the National Institute for Standards and Technology investigation.
The lecturer, Keith A. Seffen, did a study on whether the collapse times -- which were close to the free fall rate -- were plausible and found that they were, according to a BBC news report. Seffen and several other scientists have worked to fill in the gap left by the NIST, which published nothing about the matter.
Seffen's paper is to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Among reasons that the sudden, rapid, symmetrical collapses have generated skepticism is that the top section of each building was lighter than the corresponding bottom section. Usually, it takes a heavier object to plow throw a lighter one in order to reduce it to shambles rapidly.
Let's spike the conspiracy theorist phrase
The phrase has been turned into a pejorative -- a cheap shot and an easy way to scornfully blow off a critic. Reporters who use it may say that, objectively, the phrase is accurate. But, the Murdoch press and others have made it into a term of derision, and reporters and editors should avoid such labeling.
Personally, I wouldn't mind being termed a treason theorist.
The lecturer, Keith A. Seffen, did a study on whether the collapse times -- which were close to the free fall rate -- were plausible and found that they were, according to a BBC news report. Seffen and several other scientists have worked to fill in the gap left by the NIST, which published nothing about the matter.
Seffen's paper is to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Among reasons that the sudden, rapid, symmetrical collapses have generated skepticism is that the top section of each building was lighter than the corresponding bottom section. Usually, it takes a heavier object to plow throw a lighter one in order to reduce it to shambles rapidly.
Let's spike the conspiracy theorist phrase
The phrase has been turned into a pejorative -- a cheap shot and an easy way to scornfully blow off a critic. Reporters who use it may say that, objectively, the phrase is accurate. But, the Murdoch press and others have made it into a term of derision, and reporters and editors should avoid such labeling.
Personally, I wouldn't mind being termed a treason theorist.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bush desperately needs another '9/11'
Faced with all the obstacles in his path, why does Bush continue his Mideast/Iraq policy?
Answer: he and his co-conspirators may have another "9/11" up their sleeves.
After the 2006 Democratic victory, Bush announced a troop "surge," knowing very well that once troops are overseas it becomes politically very difficult for Congress to force their return.
He now says a "gradual reduction" from the surge level is possible, which really means nothing. But Petraeus has said that a reduction will be forced by wear and tear on the troops, who are continually being recycled back to Iraq and whose tours are subject to arbitrary extension. The commander has said this level of commitment in Iraq is damaging the military's global capabilities and can't be maintained.
But consider the slew of laws and executive orders that have been emplaced that can easily be used for imposition of martial law in America and the waiving of basic American freedoms for political dissidents (see Project Censored's top 25 censored stories at projectcensored.org). Simultaneously, the U.S. is becoming increasingly bellicose toward Iran and is setting up a border conflict that might easily be used to justify escalated hostilities.
There's only one problem: The U.S. lacks enough troops to maintain the neocon policy of "pacifying" the Middle East through the soft underbelly of Iraq.
There are two ways to get more troops: set up mercenary brigades or re-institute the draft. Right now, Iraq is full of U.S.-paid mercenaries ("contract employees") but they are not easily constituted into a major fighting force -- plus they're very costly.
Yet a draft seems unthinkable. The resistance would be gigantic. Yet that resistance could well be smothered by a new wave of terrorism-inspired hysteria and propaganda sweeping the nation. For the Bush bunch, the danger of a second massive stab in the back has been that they will be targeted for doing a poor job in the "war on terror." But Bush's term is winding down and he is tending toward lame-duck status anyway. So, politically, how much does he have to lose from such an act, especially now that all the tools are at hand to impose martial law? Who would dare stop the ruling clique from also imposing a draft?
However, chances that Bush could again protect all of spookdom from accountability in a second massive terror attack aren't very high. Heads would have to roll this time. So whose heads will be sacrificed by the conspirators? Something to ponder.
Answer: he and his co-conspirators may have another "9/11" up their sleeves.
After the 2006 Democratic victory, Bush announced a troop "surge," knowing very well that once troops are overseas it becomes politically very difficult for Congress to force their return.
He now says a "gradual reduction" from the surge level is possible, which really means nothing. But Petraeus has said that a reduction will be forced by wear and tear on the troops, who are continually being recycled back to Iraq and whose tours are subject to arbitrary extension. The commander has said this level of commitment in Iraq is damaging the military's global capabilities and can't be maintained.
But consider the slew of laws and executive orders that have been emplaced that can easily be used for imposition of martial law in America and the waiving of basic American freedoms for political dissidents (see Project Censored's top 25 censored stories at projectcensored.org). Simultaneously, the U.S. is becoming increasingly bellicose toward Iran and is setting up a border conflict that might easily be used to justify escalated hostilities.
There's only one problem: The U.S. lacks enough troops to maintain the neocon policy of "pacifying" the Middle East through the soft underbelly of Iraq.
There are two ways to get more troops: set up mercenary brigades or re-institute the draft. Right now, Iraq is full of U.S.-paid mercenaries ("contract employees") but they are not easily constituted into a major fighting force -- plus they're very costly.
Yet a draft seems unthinkable. The resistance would be gigantic. Yet that resistance could well be smothered by a new wave of terrorism-inspired hysteria and propaganda sweeping the nation. For the Bush bunch, the danger of a second massive stab in the back has been that they will be targeted for doing a poor job in the "war on terror." But Bush's term is winding down and he is tending toward lame-duck status anyway. So, politically, how much does he have to lose from such an act, especially now that all the tools are at hand to impose martial law? Who would dare stop the ruling clique from also imposing a draft?
However, chances that Bush could again protect all of spookdom from accountability in a second massive terror attack aren't very high. Heads would have to roll this time. So whose heads will be sacrificed by the conspirators? Something to ponder.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Edwards, Breitweiser and 9/11
Jersey girl Breitweiser, one of the 9/11 widows who lobbied for an independent panel to investigate the attacks, made a political appearance with Edwards.
Though the lawyer turned activist and liberal blogger does not make explicit her concerns about conspiracy, that implication is what gets certain neocons so fired up against her and the others. Despite a dirty deal by Dems to vouchsafe the 9/11 commission coverup, Breitweiser has properly scorned the report as headed by people with sharp conflicts of interest.
Edwards is lagging, and he doesn't have much to lose in alienating the coverup media by working with 9/11 activists. Good move. At least he doesn't come off like a deer in headlights like he did a couple months back when questioned by a 9/11 truth activist.
Hopefully he can somehow work with responsible members of the 9/11 truth movement -- oh, I can hear the Murdochocracy now: Edwards consorts with wingnuts... Who cares? If you're gonna fight, then fight.
Though the lawyer turned activist and liberal blogger does not make explicit her concerns about conspiracy, that implication is what gets certain neocons so fired up against her and the others. Despite a dirty deal by Dems to vouchsafe the 9/11 commission coverup, Breitweiser has properly scorned the report as headed by people with sharp conflicts of interest.
Edwards is lagging, and he doesn't have much to lose in alienating the coverup media by working with 9/11 activists. Good move. At least he doesn't come off like a deer in headlights like he did a couple months back when questioned by a 9/11 truth activist.
Hopefully he can somehow work with responsible members of the 9/11 truth movement -- oh, I can hear the Murdochocracy now: Edwards consorts with wingnuts... Who cares? If you're gonna fight, then fight.
The quant menace: connecting the dots
When the number of computerized quant traders was relatively small, there was little need for them to interact much. But as the potential for huge profit crowds the investment field with quants, the potential for national and global economic catastrophe increases.
As one quant manager said in a Wall Street Journal story today: last month's sudden massive plunges in quant (as in high quantity trading fund) performance was a consequence of too many players. He of course is trying to fine-tune his fund's algorithms.
But the real trouble with computerized statistical arbitrage -- which relies on statistical analysis and the law of large numbers to favor profitability -- is not that it doesn't work, but that that eventually it will be such a powerful market force that it can't work as planned.
What happened in August seems to have been triggered by some unknown quant's short-selling. But short-selling is a key component of arbitrage pricing theory, a technique for taking advantage of statistical patterns in the market. That short-selling spree evidently triggered a round of forced repurchases, with massive losses.
As these arbitrage programs proliferate and their volumes grow, the statistical nature of the market is bound to change. That is, you get a "new force" that, like the market it mirrors, is highly non-linear. Non-linear processes have a strong tendency to become erratic, unpredictable and even mathematically chaotic.
Yes, some traders will improve their algorithms and squeeze out those who are less capable. But, the competitive process will mean that optimization of algorithms will reach a limit. In fact, it's a mathematical fact that an algorithm always has some maximum efficiency. You can't improve on it forever. Optimal algorithms may vary somewhat but they'll all have about the same bang for the buck.
So as computer arbitrage techniques race toward equilibrium, the quants face the likelihood of further sudden catastrophic losses at times that aren't terribly predictable. Of course, one could design an algorithm to monitor -- statistically and via espionage -- the subset of quant traders, but eventually this tactic will also zero out in value as others follow suit.
Consider several computerized players playing poker. Once optimal poker algorithms are achieved, the most probable outcome for any player, assuming each has unlimited funds, is to break even. If each player begins with a finite stake, then the player with the largest (using statistically meaningful differences) stake is most likely to eventually take all, with all the others going bankrupt. If each player has about the same finite stake, that means that there is an equal chance that any player will eventually bankrupt all the others.
This analogue may seem excessively simple. But these "forces" work the same, whether in poker or in a crowded APC field.
However, in the computerized poker games, a cascade effect isn't considered. But sudden, catastrophic APC movements can interact with each other and cascade into the general market, wreaking havoc.
The Bush administration's Wall Street watchers have failed to connect the dots, or, if they have, the intelligence has not reached higher officials. Yet the likelihood of one or more horrific economic shocks poses a far more terrifying threat to national security than anything that occurred on 9/11.
As one quant manager said in a Wall Street Journal story today: last month's sudden massive plunges in quant (as in high quantity trading fund) performance was a consequence of too many players. He of course is trying to fine-tune his fund's algorithms.
But the real trouble with computerized statistical arbitrage -- which relies on statistical analysis and the law of large numbers to favor profitability -- is not that it doesn't work, but that that eventually it will be such a powerful market force that it can't work as planned.
What happened in August seems to have been triggered by some unknown quant's short-selling. But short-selling is a key component of arbitrage pricing theory, a technique for taking advantage of statistical patterns in the market. That short-selling spree evidently triggered a round of forced repurchases, with massive losses.
As these arbitrage programs proliferate and their volumes grow, the statistical nature of the market is bound to change. That is, you get a "new force" that, like the market it mirrors, is highly non-linear. Non-linear processes have a strong tendency to become erratic, unpredictable and even mathematically chaotic.
Yes, some traders will improve their algorithms and squeeze out those who are less capable. But, the competitive process will mean that optimization of algorithms will reach a limit. In fact, it's a mathematical fact that an algorithm always has some maximum efficiency. You can't improve on it forever. Optimal algorithms may vary somewhat but they'll all have about the same bang for the buck.
So as computer arbitrage techniques race toward equilibrium, the quants face the likelihood of further sudden catastrophic losses at times that aren't terribly predictable. Of course, one could design an algorithm to monitor -- statistically and via espionage -- the subset of quant traders, but eventually this tactic will also zero out in value as others follow suit.
Consider several computerized players playing poker. Once optimal poker algorithms are achieved, the most probable outcome for any player, assuming each has unlimited funds, is to break even. If each player begins with a finite stake, then the player with the largest (using statistically meaningful differences) stake is most likely to eventually take all, with all the others going bankrupt. If each player has about the same finite stake, that means that there is an equal chance that any player will eventually bankrupt all the others.
This analogue may seem excessively simple. But these "forces" work the same, whether in poker or in a crowded APC field.
However, in the computerized poker games, a cascade effect isn't considered. But sudden, catastrophic APC movements can interact with each other and cascade into the general market, wreaking havoc.
The Bush administration's Wall Street watchers have failed to connect the dots, or, if they have, the intelligence has not reached higher officials. Yet the likelihood of one or more horrific economic shocks poses a far more terrifying threat to national security than anything that occurred on 9/11.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Mob slips terror net?
The mob can breathe easier... maybe. Organized crime links to terrorism showed up in a Homeland Security data mining operation, but the program, developed by national weapon lab scientists, was killed because other programs are commercially available cheaper, an HS spokesman said.
The pattern recognition program had been criticized for failing to meet privacy concerns, though the reputed misuse of data appears to have been a trivial technical foul. The data had already been vetted for privacy concerns, but just not for this specific program.
Whether we are witnessing the emergence of a row between feds and mobsters over 9/11 complicity is still a matter of conjecture. Certainly the mob's help was required in making World Trade Center steel disappear so quickly, and in quite a few other areas of the coverup.
In the JFK assassination aftermath, such a feud did break out. The mob backed New Orleans DA Jim Garrison's campaign to nail the CIA in the murder. The mob felt that the CIA, which did indeed carry out the assassination, had been trying to steer attention away from the agency by inferentially suggesting that the Mafia was behind the slaying. (Certainly organized crime at least agreed to the hit and had a major hand in the coverup.) Eventually mob boss Carlos Marcello, who had been named as an assassination suspect by a congressional inquiry, was sent to prison on federal bribery charges in what seemed to be an attempt to placate Warren commission doubters with the notion that the real killer had been locked up.
It's my thinking that Marcello was forced by mob families around the nation to take the dive in order to get the heat off the mob in general following publication of the congressional report.
So even though the mob, the CIA and top oligarchs eventually came to terms, the disagreement lasted for years and was extremely dangerous. Not only did many witnesses die but the feud could have exploded into a gigantic political firestorm at any moment.
Are we witnessing such a situation now? I'd say there's a good chance. Increasingly, serious professionals are publicly voicing severe doubts about official 9/11 claims. If you were a mobster involved -- or even not involved -- in the 9/11 coverup, wouldn't you be jittery? Wouldn't you be likely to protect your interests? Even if you believe in omerta, many of those involved aren't "stand-up guys" in that respect.
The pattern recognition program had been criticized for failing to meet privacy concerns, though the reputed misuse of data appears to have been a trivial technical foul. The data had already been vetted for privacy concerns, but just not for this specific program.
Whether we are witnessing the emergence of a row between feds and mobsters over 9/11 complicity is still a matter of conjecture. Certainly the mob's help was required in making World Trade Center steel disappear so quickly, and in quite a few other areas of the coverup.
In the JFK assassination aftermath, such a feud did break out. The mob backed New Orleans DA Jim Garrison's campaign to nail the CIA in the murder. The mob felt that the CIA, which did indeed carry out the assassination, had been trying to steer attention away from the agency by inferentially suggesting that the Mafia was behind the slaying. (Certainly organized crime at least agreed to the hit and had a major hand in the coverup.) Eventually mob boss Carlos Marcello, who had been named as an assassination suspect by a congressional inquiry, was sent to prison on federal bribery charges in what seemed to be an attempt to placate Warren commission doubters with the notion that the real killer had been locked up.
It's my thinking that Marcello was forced by mob families around the nation to take the dive in order to get the heat off the mob in general following publication of the congressional report.
So even though the mob, the CIA and top oligarchs eventually came to terms, the disagreement lasted for years and was extremely dangerous. Not only did many witnesses die but the feud could have exploded into a gigantic political firestorm at any moment.
Are we witnessing such a situation now? I'd say there's a good chance. Increasingly, serious professionals are publicly voicing severe doubts about official 9/11 claims. If you were a mobster involved -- or even not involved -- in the 9/11 coverup, wouldn't you be jittery? Wouldn't you be likely to protect your interests? Even if you believe in omerta, many of those involved aren't "stand-up guys" in that respect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)